Sunday, January 26, 2014

“Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being
‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any
statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my
conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.”

“Lack of warming since 1998″
“the warming over the past 15 years is only ~0.05″

Is inconsistent with surface air temperature datasets that have more
complete coverage of the Arctic (e.g. Cowtan and Way; GISS). We have
done many more further tests which strengthen this result. If you
believe that the rate of warming is only 0.05 then I ask that you prove
it and provide your code and rationale for how you deal with the missing
coverage areas. Remember leaving a region out treats it the same as the
global average.

A second major point:

“Further, Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies”

Your statement (and the IPCC one you referenced) regarding the early
century Arctic warming being of comparable magnitude to the recent
Arctic warming is incorrect. Once again I ask that you provide the
analysis to prove this erroneous statement. Myself and Kevin have
already verified based on all available land, and land+ocean datasets
even including the NansenSAT dataset that the IPCC referenced for this
statement.

I’ve recently done threeblogposts
about your senate testimony. In addition to offering my opinions, I
have also taken the time to “(publicly) document and rebut” statements
in your testimony that are “factually inaccurate or … not supported by
the evidence” that you provide.

If you think my efforts are “dubious,” then I invite you to publicly
support that contention. Be sure to provide scientific evidence, and
rest assured that those (including me) who will place whatever you
provide under the microscope will be far better prepared to evaluate it
than members of a senate committee.

As for the legal case between Steyn and Mann, I suggest that the
judge who will decide the case has at least as much reverence for our
constitution’s free-speech guarantee, and a far better understading of
the issues, than you and others who talk of “rather frightening
implications of this case for free speech.” Or have you spent enough
time on google and wikipedia to launch a “21st century democratization
of expertise” when it comes to the law?

Prof. Curry, perhaps you would be kind enough to reconcile the claim in
your written testimony that increasing Antarctic sea ice extent as
reported in the AR5 WGI report weakens the case for attributing most of
the warming to human influences can be reconciled
with your 2010 PNAS paper, Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean
and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice the abstract of
which reads:

The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a
substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century.
Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric
hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of
the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced
upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea
surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models
for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal
variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak.
With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through
the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern
Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal
variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above
(atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the
enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the
Antarctic sea ice.

24 comments:

I was going to come here and see if you had seen Curry's post. I am properly humbled.What I find interesting is her correlation between the words of simberg and Steyn with Mann's assertion about her. It seems to me there is a BIg difference between accusing a person directly of fraud , that they manipulated their own research data to reach a predetermined fraudulent conclusion and saying that someone's views are anti science or a person is a misinformer.the difference is that Mann's comments that she lists are insults, while Steyns is actually libelous ( in my view).I would contend that calling Stalin a genocidal bastard tyrant dictator is also a terrible insult, but it happens to be true based on the facts we have. And it seems to me Mann's insults are true, based on the facts as I know them.I especially like how she "graciously" declines to sue Mann for his insults of her, doing her moral superiority play that she seems to enjoy doing

Tamino might add that that goes double for the chilling effect on free speech of true believers hurling 'anti-science' accusations in place of examinable evidence.

Those demanding abject allegiance to the policy goals of science by committee too much bring to mind the insufficiently distant days of science by central committee. Rules of cloture appropriate to legislative bodies are alien to freedom of public discourse, and that public space runs right up to the Capitol doors.

She seems to me to be extravagantly and deliberately obtuse. I think RP Jr. weeps himself to sleep thinking of how she effortlessly runs a perpetual motion machine signifying nothing but gleaming with useless, pyritic attention.

Robert Way is too generous. The warming over the last 15 years (Jan 1999-Dec 2013) on HadCRUT4 is 0.11 C, ie, substantially above 0.05 C. Curry has at best confused the decadal trend, with the increase in temperature over the last 15 years. Potentially, she has used an obsolete data set (HadCRUT3v with a temperature increase of 0.06 C) without stating the fact. The former might be an egregious error, while the later smacks of deliberate misrepresentation.

Curry has been a member of AGU since 1994. She is also an AGU fellow. Now she might not care much about ethics or codes of conduct when playing rhetorical games before the US Congress, but Curry ought to keep the following in mind when she when she speaks and writes in public.

"A. The membership will conduct themselves according to the highest professional and ethical standard in professional activities, scientific research, communications, and public engagement in order to preserve the integrity of science and the public trust.... D. An investigation of any alleged violation of these principles or code shall be conducted in the event of credible accusations to ensure that the scientific community and public continue to regard AGU as ethical, authoritative, objective, and professional.

E. It is the responsibility of each member of the union to uphold the standards of scientific conduct and to report allegations of unethical scientific practice to the AGU Ethics Committee."

Curry notes on her blog that the opinions expressed therein in no way represent the opinions of her employer. It might be prudent for her to extend that disclaimer to the AGU, AMS and AAAS. Maybe at their insistence?

It would also be very helpful if these esteemed groups would distance themselves from Curry's attacks on her colleagues, her cherry picking, her obfuscation, her misleading statements and her attempts to mislead the US Congress and American people by misrepresenting the IPCC's fifth assessment report.

Curry can retort with all the bluster and evasion and indignation that she can muster, but it will not change the fact that her behaviour is in conflict with the AGU code of ethics, for example. And for that she only has herself to blame.

Now Curry might like to try and play the victim card or enjoy the attention, but at this point I'd suggest people ignore the drama and Curry's rhetoric, and refute each and every one of her misrepresentations or errors. Where is a real Climate Auditor when you need one ;)?

Given that Dr Curry was a co-author of the BEST Project's methods paper, UHI paper, station quality paper and decadal variations paper, I find her error-riddled testimony puzzling. A cynical person could wonder how much involvement she actually had with the papers, or the project.

It's been a long time since I last had a paper published but in the old days putting your name on research you hadn't really been involved with was pretty serious misconduct.

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm."

Indeed a puzzlement. Her name used to be on the BEST website. When did that change?

I found this, including a quote from Muller:http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/08/the-best-is-yet-to-come-an-interview-with-richard-muller

-------excerpt follows------

One of the strongest voices criticising the study comes from the BEST team itself. Dr Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be a co-author on the latest BEST study, and says on her blog she does not "see any justification in [BEST's] argument for" the group's statement that its warming data fits with manmade carbon dioxide. Curry's not alone: former climate scientist William Connolley claims BEST has done "none of the attribution work you'd expect".

Muller says Curry distanced herself from the paper because she disagrees with the findings, and that she has an alternative theory - that the climate is random, so any correlation between increases in carbon dioxide and warming is an accident. His response: "'I've said to her that the unfortunate aspect of her theory is that it's untestable. Now a theory that's untestable is not something I consider to be a theory."--------end excerpt-----

When assessing trends you use a method that minimises the effect of noise in the signal. If Ms Curry insists on using an El Nino year as one of only two data points for her 'trend' and ignores all the other data points available and the modern mathematics available to her then that seems to me to be anti-science.

To be fair, I am going to issue a challenge to Dr. Curry. If Dr. Curry honestly believes that her opinions have scientific merit and/or are novel, then I challenge her to publish (as sole author) a paper on each one of her claims made to Congress in a reputable peer-reviewed journal such as Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Journal of Climate, or Climate Dynamics, or International Journal of Climatology or Geophysical Research letters.

So what's the deal, then? Is she simply incompetent, fixated on a bad idea (ala Lindzen), or is the filthy lucre involved? I can't imagine that she has a personal line of credit with any of the pro-doubt interests, but it's easy to imagine--given the evidence--that she's made a funding deal for her school and programs. No lies required: just focus on uncertainty, which provides her with a niche for publication, serves the interests of her benefactors, allows her to rationalize her position as a service to the science, and keeps her warm and friendly across campus. Everyone wins (and everyone loses).

For the sake of tidying up loose ends,for the one or two besides me who don't read all the climate blogs all the time, and for the two or three besides me who really, really wish hypertext worked as intended*, JC over there** did respond to mention of that Carbonbrief interview quote:

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.